PQC: Martin Luther King was hated and feared by many in power  It’s normal. But why was a religious man of peace and justice  hated and feared by “the people”, many of whom are blacks? By just reading the Preface one would be terrified by the truth about the murdering of Martin Luther King that has been suppressed till this very day. The most terrifying thing to me is the betrayal that came from King “own people”. The late “Reverend Samuel Billy Kyles” and Marrell McCollough were this kind of turncoat maggot. Without these maggots LBJ, Hoover or any fucking big shot could not do a thing!

Ironically these maggots have been protected by the very  people for whom Martin Luther King dedicated his life.

Even though I myself experienced such betrayal but “luckily”,  in lesser degree- I am still alive , but still terrifying, Look around you folks and be vigilant. You will never be paranoid enough!


ptkkIt has been nearly half a century since Martin Luther King Jr. was taken from us. From the outset— forty-seven years ago, as set out in detail in the epilogue—one writer after another has attempted to disinform the citizens and create false history. Like most people, I accepted the official story about how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered. I believe this was the result of my naiveté or perhaps the desire to put the loss of a friend behind me. In any case, when Dr. Benjamin Spock, the pediatrician and antiwar activist, and I traveled to Memphis for the memorial march on April 8, 1968, four days after the assassination, as far as I was concerned it was in the hands of the police. In the following years, I heard about inconsistencies in the state’s case and rumors of a conspiracy in which James Earl Ray was framed for Dr. King’s murder. Then in 1977 to 1978, following a conversation with the Reverend Ralph Abernathy, and at his suggestion, I prepared for and conducted a five-hour interview with James Earl Ray. Since that time, the mystery of Dr. King’s assassination has dominated much of my life. In no small measure, I suppose, this is because of the responsibility I feel for having initially prompted him to oppose the Vietnam War. That stand was a major factor contributing to his death. The intervening years have only strengthened my belief that Dr. King’s assassination constituted the greatest loss suffered by the Republic in the twentieth century. To understand his death, it is essential to realize that although he is popularly depicted and perceived as a civil rights leader, he was much more than that. A nonviolent revolutionary, he personified the most powerful force for the longoverdue social, political, and economic reconstruction of the nation. Those in charge of the United States intelligence, military, and law enforcement machinery understood Dr. King’s true significance. They perceived his active opposition to the war and his organizing of the poor as grave disruptions to the stability of a society already rife with unrest. FBI Director Hoover, in particular, took the position that Dr. King was under communist control. The last year of Dr. King’s life was during one of the most turbulent times in the history of the nation. Much of the civil unrest took the form of nationwide urban riots and was clearly the result of racial tensions, frustrations, and anger at oppressive living conditions and the endemic hopelessness of inner-city life. However, one cannot consider these explosions without taking into account the pervasive presence of the war, its legitimization of violence, and its overall impact on the neighborhoods of the country. In the year running up to July 1967, the number of riots and other serious disruptions against public order had reached ninety-three in nineteen states. In August, an additional thirty-three riots occurred in thirty-two cities in twenty-two states. Dr. King was at the center of it all. His unswerving opposition to the war and his commitment to bring hundreds of thousands of poor people to a Washington, DC, encampment in the spring of 1968 to focus Congress’s attention on the plight of the nation’s poor turned the government’s anxiety into utter
panic. In retrospect, I believe that there was no way Dr. King was going to be allowed to lead this army of alienated poor to Washington to take up residence in the shadow of the Washington Memorial. When army intelligence officers interviewed rioters in Detroit after the July 23, 1967, riot that left nineteen dead, eight hundred injured, and $150 million of property damaged, they were amazed to learn that the leader most respected by those violent teenagers was not Stokely Carmichael, nor H. Rap Brown, but Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Six weeks after the Detroit riots, the National Conference for New Politics (NCNP), which I served as its executive director, scheduled a national convention over Labor Day weekend in Chicago. The gathering of five thousand delegates from all around the country and from every walk of life was expected to support a third-party presidential ticket of Dr. King and Dr. Spock. We now know the shock this prospect caused at the highest levels of government. So caught up were we in the fight for social change that we didn’t appreciate the strength and determination of the opposition. It has become clear to me that by 1967 a siege mentality had descended on the nation’s establishment forces, including its federal law enforcement, intelligence, and military branches. At the best of times, “official” Washington and its appendages throughout the country are highly insular and protective. In 1967 to 1968, with the barbarians gathering just outside the gates of power, any move in defense of the system and its special economic interests would have been viewed as a patriotic duty. All significant organizations committed to ending the war of fostering social or economic change were infiltrated, subjected to surveillance, and/or subverted. NCNP was no exception. This final book has been in development since 1978 and reflects a long-term effort to uncover the truth about Dr. King’s assassination. It does not cover the full scope of the investigation, since many leads were examined and discarded and much information, however interesting, ultimately turned out to be superfluous to the central story. In 1988, having come to finally believe that he was an unknowing scapegoat, I agreed to represent James Earl Ray. By 1990 I had become convinced that the only way to end his wrongful imprisonment would be to solve the case. The investigation, on which the book is based, has been focused on that goal. In every way possible I have sought to put evidence of James’s innocence before a court. Frustrated at every turn over this long-term effort, I now turn to the court of last resort—the American people. This story has taken nearly four decades to unfold. The delay is largely the result of the creation and perpetration of a cover-up by government authorities at the local, state, and national levels, and the collaboration of the mainstream media, which is factually detailed in the epilogue. I have become convinced that had some of the honest, competent Memphis homicide detectives I have come to know over the years not met obstruction from within their own ranks, they could have ferreted out enough evidence to warrant indicting several Memphians on charges ranging from accessory before (or after) the fact, to conspiracy, to murder, to murder in the first degree. Among those indicted would have been some of their fellow officers. Even without official obfuscation, however, it’s unlikely that these detectives could have traced the conspiracy further afield to the various well-insulated sources and individuals who were criminally involved. As will become increasingly clear, it was inevitable that such a local police investigation wouldn’t be allowed and that each and every politically sponsored official investigation since 1968 would misinform the public and cover up the truth. Years of investigation, and a habeas corpus petition denial, led to the unscripted television mock trial in 1993 that resulted in a not guilty verdict. In addition, a civil trial in 1999 held responsible officials of the federal, state, and local governments. My subsequent investigation, over a further
fifteen-year period, has unearthed powerful new evidence. The stories of several key witnesses, silent for decades, are revealed for the first time. Although we will never know each and every detail behind this most heinous crime, we now have enough hard facts to overwhelmingly support James Earl Ray’s innocence. The body of new evidence, if formally considered, would compel any independent grand jury to bring to account those guilty parties whom we have identified. Ultimately, there are many victims in this case; Dr. King, James Earl Ray, their families, and the citizens of the United States. All have been victimized by the abject failure of their democratic institutions. The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and its cover-up extends far and wide into all levels of government and public services. Through the extensive control of information and the failure of checks and balances, government has inevitably come to serve the needs of powerful special interests. As a result, the essence of democracy—government of, by, and for the people—has been terminally eroded, and replaced, in my view, by a dominant oligarchic ruling system. Thus, what begins as a detective story ends as a tragedy of unimagined proportions: an American tragedy; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is dead; James Earl Ray died in prison; many of the guilty remain free, some even revered and honored; and our faith in what we thought we knew as the United States is shaken to the core. For me, this is a story rife with sadness, replete with massive accounts of personal and public deception and betrayal. Its revelations and experiences have produced in the writer a depression stemming from an unavoidable confrontation with the depths to which human beings, even those subject to professional codes of ethics, have fallen. In addition, there is an element of personal despair that has resulted from this long effort, which has made me even question the wisdom of undertaking this task. Far from being elated that the truth is now with us face-to-face, I feel consumed by a sadness that will be a lifelong emotional presence. One significant factor is facing the reality that one has misjudged the integrity and even the basic decency of individuals, some of whom have been friends or respected comrades over many years. It is a traumatic realization that the use of political assassinations has all too often been successful at removing uncontrollable leaders whose commitment to substantive change of their societies had threatened the ruling forces, and thereby become so intolerable that physical removal remained the only option. This allowed for more compliant replacements and, in Dr. King’s case, a void that could not be filled. Two other leaders on J. Edgar Hoover’s “Prayer List,” President John F. Kennedy and president-in-waiting Robert F. Kennedy, were similarly removed. What has emerged is a perceptible change in public policies and civil society often serving the interests of the sponsoring ruling elite. In my view, Paul Craig Roberts, the former Assistant Treasury Secretary under Ronald Reagan; Professor Martin Gilens of Princeton University; and Professor Benjamin of Northwestern University —the latter two writing in the journal Perspectives on Politics—are correct in their assertion that representative democracy in America has (subsequent to the 1960s’ fulfillment of the Hoover/Tolsen “Prayer List”) yielded to an oligarchic system of government and that this government is orchestrated by wealthy private-interest groups and individuals, resulting in a US government with a superficial resemblance to a functioning representative democracy. As discussed later on with regard to this particular case, a principal focus in the demise of democracy and an accountable government is the concentration of the media in a few hands (see the epilogue). A formerly diverse media with significant independence is today concentrated in four mega-corporations. The selective issuance of broadcasting licenses ensures that the government will not be challenged on significant issues, particularly regarding political assassinations and false-flag
“terrorist” events. Such acts are the lifeblood of the American oligarchy and its rulers. It has been a source of great personal sadness that I have known three of the principal victims and represented as chief counsel two of the alleged assassins about whose innocence I have come to have no doubt. Having had the advantage of being able to keep an eye open for new information on the Dr. King case for nearly four decades, I have had the advantage of seeing evidence emerge from the ether. I believe we can now state with certainty that not only is this assassination conclusively explained, but in the process of completing the investigation, we now know more about this assassination than about any similar assassination in history. Whether the truth will make its way into the history books and thus into the minds of successive generations of American citizens is another story and one of which I shall not be the author. To this end, my work and this final book complete my investigation of this American tragedy. It dramatically ties up the loose ends and fills in most of the remaining blanks leading up to and including the events on April 4, 1968. The most startling revelation is that although many players have since passed away at the time of this writing, Dr. King’s primary, though not final, assassin is alive and reasonably well along with the perpetuation of the institutional forces behind it all. In the context of one of the greatest injustices of the twentieth century, it is this that festers: that while so many good and innocent men and women have gone, the corruption, the corrupt, and the shadowy ruling forces remain—seemingly stronger and more entrenched than ever. My work, which began nine years after the assassination and has continued to the present, has resulted in two books—in 1995 and 2003—and now culminates with this final work. This book pulls all of the previous work together, leading up to a revelation of the most devastatingly depressive final act in the life of this much-loved man. Due to the absence of any courage by the mainstream/corporate media, the disinformers have largely been successful in keeping the truth buried. Even today, they persist. Tavis Smiley authored and published a book in 2014 entitled Death of a King: The Real Story of Martin Luther King’s Jr.’s Final Year. While ignoring the now-extensively known facts surrounding the assassination, the television personality and host, Smiley, brings the reader up to the actual event, which is noted in the most cursory manner. There is no mention of James Earl Ray. Neither is my name or work mentioned in the text, the sources, bibliographies, or the index. Neither was I one of the people chosen to be interviewed. When asked about this omission by a colleague of my friend Jim Douglas (who has had a long-time interest in my work on this case) at a Birmingham, Alabama, book gathering, Smiley’s comment was that he had his limits. And so he did, resulting in yet another instance of dis-informing the world about the loss of this great man. It is as though my (by then) thirty-seven-year effort to bring clarity and truth to this historic event, set out in two prior books, published in 1995 and 2003; a 1989 BBC documentary; a 1993 Thames Television/HBO Trial; and a thirty-day civil trial in 1999 where I represented the King family, had never occurred. Is it conceivable that Smiley was unfamiliar with this work and these presentations? I think not and therein lies the insult, not only to me but to the King family, the memory of Dr. King, and to the truth and justice as well.
Coincidentally, I only knew Dr. King during the last year of his life. As David Garrow acknowledges in his book Bearing the Cross, it was my Ramparts magazine article from January 1967, “The Children of Vietnam,” and the photographs it contained compiled during my time as a journalist in Vietnam in 1966 (see Appendix B) that caused Dr. King to weep in my presence when I opened the file. For him, from that time forward there was no turning away from a commitment to oppose the war. Smiley fails to mention that at Dr. King’s suggestion, before introducing him to a mass crowd in front of the United Nations on April 15, 1976, it was agreed that I would put forward the idea of the King/Spock independent presidential ticket to oppose the Johnson-war presidency in 1968. Smiley’s selective historical account also fails to mention that with Dr. King’s approval, I became the executive director of the National Conference for New Politics (NCNP)—an entity that focused on developing this ticket. As a part of this effort we mounted a large independent convention with over five thousand delegates from all over the country representing every peace and freedom organization of the day, convening at the Palmer House in Chicago, over Labor Day weekend in 1967. Smiley did not seem to be aware (in fairness, it was only many years later that we learned the facts) that the Black Caucus that disrupted and subverted the convention was organized by the Chicago Blackstone Rangers gang (among others) who were paid and sponsored by the Johnson administration and working with Mayor Richard Daley’s organization. The Johnson administration was terrified about the possibility of a King/Spock ticket and mounted a heavy anti-Israeli campaign, forcing through resolutions that alienated our liberal Jewish supporters such as Martin Peretz, thus depriving the efforts of necessary funds. The administration was successful and we did not have a clue—only learning years later what had happened. These were turbulent times. It is important to remember that some one hundred cities burned that year. This was the social/political and cultural context that dominated the atmosphere of the convention. # I introduced Martin Luther King Jr. as the keynote speaker. As he was speaking, a note was passed over my shoulder: Get him out of here as soon as he is finished or we will take him hostage and embarrass him before the world. We had no choice. Dr. King was a unifier; without him the convention fell apart. Bill Coffin (the chaplain of Yale and eventually pastor of Riverside Church—a long-time social activist) and I wept. As for his final minutes in Memphis, Memphis Police Department surveillance notes recorded Billy Kyles knocking on Dr. King’s hotel room door at 5:50 p.m. The door opened briefly and closed. Kyles walked to the balcony and stood with his hands on the railing about sixty feet away from the door of the room from which Dr. King exited. Kyles did not go down to get a car. Neither did he approach Dr. King, who was standing alone on the balcony. For years this uncharacteristic action by Kyles puzzled me. That is no longer the case. Dr. King came out from the room around 6:00 p.m. Ralph Abernathy was still inside. Dr. King was shot about four minutes later. Tavis Smiley is the latest in the long list of authors and publishers to recount the time of the assassination itself. He, among others, have produced books and articles that have served to provide credibility to the official, or establishment, account of this seminal American, historical event. For a complete summary analysis, see the epilogue.
It matters little that Smiley’s latest work not only ignores the event itself but that his work is critically characterized by significant omissions. It is incredibly revealing that Smiley never reached out to interview me, but I suppose that the reason is obvious. He had his limits. They might have been breached. At this writing, I understand that the Discovery Channel will be airing a documentary; I have not been interviewed recently for this production. We will see if they also had their “limits.”


The fucking “Reverend” Samuel Billy Kyles

“Thursday, April 4, was the fifty-third day of the strike. While Dr. King slept, Judge Bailey Brown began to hear arguments on whether the temporary restraining order should be made permanent, thus making it illegal for the march that had been rescheduled for April 8 to proceed. The legal team representing Dr. King and his colleagues requested a dismissal or a modification for the existing order and proposed a series of restrictions on the march, acceptable to Dr. King. Around 4:00 p.m., Judge Brown announced that he was going to let the march proceed, subject to those restrictions. Late morning, Dr. King met with some of the Invaders and then met with Abernathy over lunch in their room, 306. Abernathy recalled that after the meal, Dr. King and his younger brother, Alfred Daniel “A. D.” King, who had arrived unexpectedly, joked with their mother on the telephone. Shortly afterward the executive staff meeting began in room 306. Hosea Williams told me that at the meeting Dr. King took him to task for attempting to put some of the Invaders on the SCLC staff (Hosea was always a keen strategist, and he saw the usefulness of co-opting some of the Invaders leadership to their side). Dr. King said that he couldn’t appreciate anyone who hadn’t learned to accept nonviolence, at least as a tactic in the struggle if not in one’s way of life. He said he didn’t want the SCLC to employ anyone who didn’t totally accept nonviolence. The meeting was in full swing when Andy Young returned from court to give his report; he was later than expected and had also neglected to call in to give a report on how the proceedings were going as Dr. King had asked him to do. Hosea remembers Dr. King tussling with him in the room, saying, “I’ll show you who the leader is.” Just about the time that the staff meeting was heating up in the motel, less than three hundred feet away a man calling himself John Willard was registering for a room in the rear of the South Main
Street rooming house whose back faced the Lorraine. Also at this time, one of the SCLC’s senior field organizers, Reverend James Orange, left to do some shopping, driven by Invaders member Marrell McCullough. On the way back to the motel they picked up James Bevel at the Clayborn Temple. About two hours later, J. Edgar Hoover was about to have the first of his pre-dinner martinis at his usual table at Harvey’s Restaurant in Washington. The fact that he attended Harvey’s for dinner as usual would be cited by defenders of the FBI as showing a lack of knowledge of the events that were to take place in the next half hour. Reverend Kyles stated and has maintained over the last thirty-six years that he arrived at the motel around 3:00 p.m. and went from room to room for a period of time visiting with various people. Clearly, Kyles’s role was to get Dr. King onto the balcony at 6:00 p.m. where a clear shot would be possible. Dr. King and about fourteen other aides were to go to Kyles’s house for a buffet dinner organized by his wife, Gwen. In At the River I Stand, Joan Beifuss records in detail Kyles’s comments on his activity during the last hour of Dr. King’s life, which have now become accepted as fact. In light of what I learned later, I believe it useful to quote verbatim from her transcription of Kyles’s story: “Ralph was dressed when I got in [to room 306] and Martin was still dressing…. Ralph said, ‘All right now, Billy. I don’t want you fooling me tonight. Are we going to have soul food? Now if we go over there and get some filet mignon or T-bone, you’re going to flunk….’ Dr. King says, ‘Yeah, we don’t want it to be like that preacher’s house we went to in Atlanta, that great big house. We … had some ham—a ham bone—and there wasn’t no meat on it. We had Kool-Aid and it wasn’t even sweet….’ I said, ‘You just get ready. You’re late.’ I had told them 5:00 and I told my wife 6:00. I said, ‘Hurry up. Let’s go.’ “He was in a real good mood. It may have been from what they accomplished in the staff meeting— when Dr. King’s relaxed, he’s relaxed. He’d put his shirt on. He couldn’t find his tie. And he thought that the staff was playing games with him, but we did find it in the drawer. When he put the shirt on, it was too tight. And I said, ‘Oh, Doctor, you’re getting fat!’ “He said, ‘Yeah, I am doing that….’ “I called to Ralph to come on. They were getting ready to load up. I said, ‘I’ll come down. Wait a minute. Somebody can ride with me.’ As I turned and got maybe five steps away this noise sounded. Like a firecracker.” As discussed elsewhere, based upon the surveillance notes from the police intelligence investigator, this account was a bold-faced lie, used by Kyles to disguise the role he was instructed to play: to get Dr. King on the balcony at 6:00 p.m.—a clean target—as Kyles had walked about sixty feet north out of the way, where he waited.”